testimony on libya. now, "washington journal."and neither brown university's professor, john logan, ♪ ♪ host: the papers mentioning this morning that there are reports that democrats or republicans are nearing a budget deal that would keep the federal government from shutting down. this, as tea party supporters meet on capitol hill today, calling for more spending cuts. stick close to c-span.org for information on when that event will air. we want to get your thoughts in our first 45 minutes on the tea party's role and their influence

on the budget negotiation process. here is how you can weight in this morning. the phone lines -- a special phone line we set aside for those of you who affiliate with the tea party. as always, you can send an e- mail if you want. if you want to send us a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj. "the washington times" takes up the tea party as their headline

this morning and especially in the role of the budget negotiations. host: you heard the group, tea party patriots, mentioned. they have a website. here's what they are looking for us for spending cuts from republicans. they ask their supporters to tell congress three things. you want the full $100 billion in cuts, as promised. you want $105 billion for obama

care implementation cut now. you expect the courage to lead us out of the financial will washington has dug. this is from the tea party patriots. you want to get your thoughts on the tea party's influence. the alliance are on your screen. -- the lines are on your screen right now. if you are a member and you want to weigh in, too. there are reports last night -- russell berman -- tha writes about it for "hill" before we talk about that, talk about the overall tea party influence. guest: there's a big influence, especially with the freshmen members in the house republican caucus. when the house republicans first

came out with a budget number, the tea party freshman demanded even deeper cuts than that. that influence has carried over into these final negotiations where we are now. host: as far as the numbers go, give us what both sides are presenting. guest: the good news is they seem to be making some progress in getting closer to the number that is the target now. that is $33 billion in cuts from current spending from 2011 for the rest of the year. that goes through the end of september. there are a lot of questions and sticking points that remain. chiefly, some of these policy provisions that you mentioned, defunding the health care law, preventing funding for regulations for the epa, and planned parenthood.

all those things have yet to be decided. we do know that they have seemed to have settled on this $33 billion number, which is about halfway between what they had been talking about. it is interesting because it is roughly what the house republican leadership proposed a couple of months ago. this was back before the freshmen made them go back in demand $61 billion in cuts. this would be a compromise, but it would bring them back to where they started at the beginning of this process. host: we heard from eric cantor that a line has been drawn in the sand. we heard from the house speaker that there may be a way we can work. who is right among leadership as far as how much republicans are willing to budge on this process? guest: the democrats have been the ones who have been talking

more positively in the last day or so. joe biden came to the hill with the budget director and met with senate democrats. he acknowledged that they had general agreement on the top line #. john boehner's office has said there is no deal. he said they do not agree on anything until they agree on everything. it will be interesting to see john boehner. he is scheduled to have a press conference at 10:45 a.m. this morning. it will be interesting to see what his tone is. at the beginning of the day yesterday, republicans were still in bluster mode. they were accusing the democrats of rooting for shutdown. at the end of the day, there was progress.

it will be interesting to see what his tone is later this morning. host: there was a story yesterday looking at a friday vote planned in the house that would step up the game as far as this process is concerned. guest: yes, and that is still the plan as of late yesterday. it's hard to describe this vote as anything but purely symbolic. the republicans would vote on a bill that would say that if the senate did not pass a long-term spending budget that the bill the house republicans passed in february that cut $61 billion in spending would become the law of the land. that is a little confusing because, of course, that would also have to go through the senate and be signed by the president. it does not really changed the game that much. essentially, republicans would pass something similar to what they passed before.

it would be a statement of party unity and it would try to put the onus back on the senate, but in terms of making real headway, it would not be much of anything. it would also be interesting to see if they go ahead with that plan. if negotiations really make progress in the next 24 hours or so, maybe you would see them not do that. we will have to wait and see on that. host: on the house republican side, talking little bit about these numbers, not as far as some type of agreement. those who are tea party supporters -- how are they reacting? guest: we are going to see that today at this rally. the tone of that will be interesting. we would expect them to not be satisfied with the numbers like $33 billion.

they were not especially satisfied with $61 billion in cuts. the question is how deep is that opposition. but tea party caucus in the house is not that large. there are not that many freshmen in that caucus. it's a lot of activists and a few lawmakers. as you see a lot of republicans joining the chorus against this deal, they may have to go back to the table and you would see a threat of a shutdown increasing once again. host: russell berman joins us this morning to talk about the budget negotiations and the influence. thank you for your time.

if you have given us a call in the last 30 days, we ask you to hold off to let some other voices through. you're welcome to send us an e- mail or a tweet. north carolina on the line for republicans. barry, you are first. what you think about the influence of the tea party? caller: tea party is as strong as any other influence with secret corporate banker backing. all i really see at this moment is just a bunch of fear mongering over food prices and everything else because they have control of all these things. honestly, i do not really see -- i do not have any worries. the dollar can only fall so much.

host: as far as what they want congress to do, they are looking for $100 billion in cuts. $33 billion worth of cuts in the budget. caller: it boils down to this. all the public utilities and banks and everything are set up to funnel the money. it funnels right back into their pockets. host: chicago, illinois a on the line for democrats. good morning. go ahead. caller: i'm having a problem with this budgetary thing we're going through right now. i wish c-span would try to find some alternative viewpoints. this whole thing is pretty much fate. we are not broken as a country.

every now and then, people realize we are not broken. we are the wealthiest country in the world. we have the greatest wealth potential. bring on some one --debunk all this stuff that we are broke. you need a different voice. this is sort of like what we had with meweapons of mass destruction. host: talk about what we hear in the paper and what you are probably hearing as well as the tea party's role in this process. caller: what the tea party is asking for will not change our budget deficits. i watched with these cuts in february. everything was based purely on ideology. we're going to cut anything that

we think has a liberal tint. that is what this is about. it has nothing to do with fixing our budgetary crisis. host: from twitter this morning, joseph ramirez adds this thought as far as the process is concerned. "tea party needs to pose specifics." that is from twitter. chantilly, virginia. steve, good morning. caller: it is interesting. the guy who calls the economic collapse is calling tea party people extremists. the tea party is the majority of the american people. that includes every racial group and every philosophy trying to get this ridiculous $14 trillion deficit stop and reverse it before we go broke. even the international

banking systems say we are almost near broke and we are going to lose our dollar as the standard of the world. host: if you identify yourself with the tea party, you are welcome to give us your thoughts, as well. we have set aside a phone line for you this morning. jackson, mississippi. mary, go ahead. member.i'm a tea party i went to some of the tea party [inaudible] i'm really upset with the government. that man has so much hate for

black people. i've never in my life seen that. i'm a white republican. the things he is doing for the state of mississippi. host: we are talking about budget issues this morning. what do you think about the calls from those who support $100 billion from the budget? caller: [inaudible] they are not going to get that budget. they need to go off the budget increment by increment. they need to get it back down to where it needs to be. there's no way in the world they are going to do all these cuts. [inaudible] host: do you agree with the level of cuts the tea party is calling for in terms of $100 billion?

do you agree with the tea party's calls for $100 billion in cuts? caller: i do not agree with it. i do not agree with it. they have this money for years and then you're going to come in in two months and cut the budget down. host: harbor springs, michigan. kathy on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to tell you that i'm furloughed this week. i worked as a teacher's assistant. busteacher's assistants, drivers, and food-service are not paid. you are not allowed to draw

unemployment. my salary is $14,000. i live so marginally that -- it's painful to think about sometimes, but i keep moving forward. $100 billion, i cannot even begin to quantify that. health care, i do not understand why people keep saying that health care cost. what it will do is create so many jobs, jobs that are truly what human beings need. ,urses, a nurse's assistant doctors. host: what do you think the tea influence? caller: i do not know who has

any influence anymore. i know that i do not have many as a taxpayer and a voter. you call your representative and is almost like you are talking to a wall. i do not like the fact that campaigns are financed -- i pay for the lunches and the beverage of people who are working campaign trails for the federal government. there are lots -- there is a lot of waste. i'm certain of that. host: we'll leave it there. we will take some more calls in a second. this is from "usa today" looking at political views. the planned republican presidential debate has been delayed for a bit because of the dearth of candidates.

host: new jersey, thank you 4 waiting on our line for tea party members. go ahead. caller: in a small business owner. that anti-business climate is incredible. it's getting harder and harder just to do anything in america. rand paul, senator for kentucky, put out some

legislation out there for a budget and nobody even wants to look at it. what will it take for us to wake up and understand that these people are just interested in themselves? it's getting to the point where we cannot do anything. unemployment is maybe 20%. i do not think these guys are really serious. i think it is up to the american people to wake up and say, "you know what? we need to draw a line in the sand peacefully and say we will not take this anymore." i cannot hire employees. i do not know what to do. they're so much uncertainty. it is really going to be up to the american people that we do not want to take this anymore. look at the proposal that rand paul made. i do not know what else to say. host: you identify yourself as a tea party member.

do you align yourself with them specifically? caller: they understand what the average american is going through. look at the senators in my state. mendez was almost recall because he's not listening to us. ron paul and rand paul, they actually listen. this grass-roots movement is absolutely incredible. i think we have powers in numbers. some of us really have to think about and change the way we look at government. if we continue to do the same thing, we will continue to get the same results. americans, wake up. take back your government peacefully. host: when you look at the tea party proposing $100 billion in cuts, is that realistic? caller: whether it is realistic or not, we are broke. we have to do something. host: is it doable?

caller: we have the intestinal fortitude to do it. we have to look at these entitlement programs. our dollar has gone down. go to costa rica right now and you cannot even use your dollar. they are not accepting it. when are people going to wake up? we are no longer exceptional. host: from twitter this morning, jim says "the tea party is a good concept, but bad leaders." todd on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. .ig deficits they accuse the tea party of not being forthright. i think they're very forthright. there are easy goals that are easy to follow. the democrats accuse us of being sly or underhanded. so many people call your show and cannot even call the right

line. there you go, liberals. real devious. real underhanded. $9 trillion since he got in added to the debt. he still has guantanamo open. he still has iraq going on. everything he has said, are many things he said, he lied. he knew he could not provide that. we're still in those places spending tons of money we do not have. just a small cut like $60 billion out of $3 trillion and we cannot find a cut like that? there's something really wrong. if we keep spending so much money, it will drive up interest rates later on. the democrats want to drill for oil and they complain about high food prices. i see a lot of these problems as easy to get at, but the democrats will not let us. host: john ponder from twitter

this morning highlights the fact that cnn conducted the poll looking at the tea party's influence. here are some details from the cnn website. host: north carolina, abbott on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say this about the tea party. i do not even recognize the tea party.

they are a distraction. if they wanted to save money and stuff, why don't they go back and pull out all those contractors from iraq and use that money? that would save billions of dollars. let people do their own thing. they want to talk about saving money? all these confederate states have insurance with the state. the state employees have insurance with blue shield blue cross and they let them raise the prices and still from the people. medicare and medicaid take care of the crimes. host: cincinnati, ohio. ron on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you very much for the forum, c-span. before michelle bachmann was a

tea party member, she was a republican. it seems to me that the tea party is more about fiscal responsibility than trying to create their own party. here's a point that i would make. when you cover michelle bachmann and the tea party's influence in the budget this morning, i have not heard anything about the $105 billion that was allocated to funding obamacare that was in the bill. it was passed. that is the primary goal of the tea party and its influence in the budget negotiations. it's not even touch. host: we showed that very fact. caller: i appreciate that. i wish more people would tune

into c-span versus just watching this been from the different factions after the fact. host: teapartypatriots.org is what i referenced. this is from "the washington post" this morning.

host: we have been talking about the role of the budget process and looking at the role of the tea party. they are holding an event calling for democrats or republicans to call for more cuts to the budget to the tune of $100 billion. we want to talk about their role. coming up soon, ron paul will join us. later on, we will talk about the changing demographics of the country after the release of some new information on that front. we also have a line for tea party members, if you want to call in. jim identifies himself as such. go ahead. caller: good morning from

beautiful downtown newberry. the tea party does not exist. there's no such thing as a party which we are trying to ascribe to the philosophy. it's the same libertarian philosophy that rep ron paul an d rand paul are. i am a libertarian myself. there's a simple situation for the whole mess we're in now. as reagan so clearly stated, government is the problem, not the solution. we look to the government for solutions from everything from womb to tomb and it has just about destroyed the country. host: roy on the line for independents. good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span. i noticed in the tea party state

you read at the beginning of the program, they were talking about obama wanting american families to pare down. it was pair. these sad, feeble minded people do not know a simple word as in pare. they probably prepared this. they cannot do the simplest thing right. they do not mention the military. that is where the obvious savings are. they act as if the world began when obama took office. they ignore that george bush got an incredible surplus. if you look at the graphic, insist the blind down to the trench when they handed it off to obama. host: sallied on the tea party

line, go ahead. caller: i'm a new tea party member. i was a republican and now i'm going even further. i think there ideals about the budget are great. i'm one of those people who do not have much money. i think a lot of it has to do with the unions. they used to be good people. they used to be good things. i think it has gotten to the point where it cost us more than we can afford. we do not have much in the wake of unions in florida and we managed to get along just fine. host: you said you were republican and then you went further. what do you mean by that? caller: i got a little bit more extreme and went tea party. host: what are the differences between the two? caller: i think republicans can get a little witchy washy and go more democrat. host: as far as the proposed

cuts on spending, what do you make as far as what republicans are offering, $33 billion and the proposals for $100 billion that have been called by some tea party members? caller: i think the more the better. we have bigger bills. you cannot spend your way out of debt with credit. everybody knows that. our nation is trying to do that. i know it is going to take away from me. it is going to take away from everybody. we have to get back on our feet and tried to do it on our own and not depend on the government for everything. host: youngstown, ohio. good morning, bill on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to make some comments about the system we are in under the federal reserve. it will not mathematically allow

this country to balance its budget. the last person mentioned something to that order. you cannot borrow money to get out of debt. i wish everybody would educate themselves to some of the documentary's at moneymasters.com and some other information that's out there about the federal reserve system. it's common sense. to get out of that, you do not borrow money. that's what we do. it is irrelevant. democrats or republicans and -- it's all relevant until you fix the system. host: starting to cut you off. i did nothing to do that. "the new york times" this morning takes a look at the new representative for the united nations for libya.

this is from the nicaraguan government. host: steven city, virginia. mike on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think more cuts should be made then what is proposed now. host: republicans or the tea party?

caller: both. it should be more than what is proposed. there are too many people riding in the wagon, but not enough people pulling the wagon. host: the previous caller said when you talk about making cuts of that nature, everybody gets hurt in the process. when you talk about those kind of cuts, what about those who would be most affected by that? caller: even at $100 billion, compared to $14 trillion, it has got to be like instead of me going to the grocery store and spending $100, it would be like spending $99. host: des moines,

washington. good morning to mary, tea party supporter. caller: i'm a supporter of the the tea party and senator rand paul. he has a budget proposal of $200 billion in cuts. it does repeal obamacare and preserves social security and medicare benefits. i wish people listen and take a look at what he has proposed. i think it is really a good way to go for the country. host: a couple of other international stories from syria. this is in the associated press. state-run television has said the president has ordered a legal committee has been set up to abolish the emergency laws of the country.

the committee would have to complete its study by april 25. the development comes one day after he dashed expectations that he would announce sweeping reforms. host: you probably saw some video from that. we have been bringing that in from syrian television. if you want to go to our web site, c-span.org, it is an archive. you can pull up video information, including video that we've taken in on the latest news of the day. it's located on the far right of the screen. it highlighted in red. go to that box and type in any subject you want and get any think that we have taken in as a network on this issue. i would suggest that you use this. it's a very valuable resource, we think, and hopefully you will agree with us. that's located on c-span.org.

looking another story at libya. the nato chief says -- host: this also comes, as stories you may have seen about cia operations going on in libya, as well. pennsylvania, thank you for waiting. willie on the line for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for receiving my call. i'm disabled. i'm 61. there's no cure and no treatment. i do not get paid.

i'm one of those on social security. i heard on fox news last night how -- let's draw a line in the sand and let's fight. one of the conservatives said he would really be upset if there was a compromise in the republican party. if i'm not able to pay my rent and i am on the street, what am i supposed to do? those of us who are on social security, we have to understand it's not about this $100 billion. this only extends until september possibly. and the whole issue is about what will happen after that. to put disabled people on social security on the street with this $100 billion, which you have not specifically specify where and how to cut, then we really have to look at -- you are absolutely talking

about affecting social security for people who are already receiving it. thank you. that's my comment. host: "the financial times" looking at payroll growth as far as a picture of the economy. host: aspirin, virginia on our tea party line.

caller: when president kennedy was inaugurated, the debt at birth was $1,500 per person. to date is $45,000. the cuts are insufficient. it needs to be $500 billion or more. we need a tax on families that is directed at the dead. finally, the states, who have the power, should amend the constitution and cap the debt at 30% at the five-year trilling gdp, except in times of war -- congressionally declared war. host: "the wall street journal" reporting about elections, future elections in egypt. it says presidential elections will be held "one or two months after parliamentary elections are scuttled for september." -- are scheduled for september."

richmond, va. thank you for waiting. eric on the line for independents. caller: everybody is getting so excited about $100 billion. my understanding is that the debt is over $10 trillion. if we put that in different terms, if our debt was $10,000, basically, we would try to restructure our monthly expenses by $10. we are fighting over crumbs and we are getting all these social issues involved and we are not getting anywhere. both parties are not serious in washington. we need to vote in somebody else. host: one more call. pennsylvania, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i have several things on complaining about. talking about spending money, president obama took flights all

over the united states to defend his democratic candidates. i want that money returned to us, the american public. another thing. he takes these trips at our expense. i do not understand the man at all. if they want to travel, travels at their own expense. if they would only take care and hire people to check up on all these people on welfare that are not really needy, we would save a lot of money. it would be well worth the expense of hiring people. host: we will leave it there. appreciate all of you who participated. we cover the day by day, blow by

blow, and politics. sometimes we get to cover social events, too, such as the congressional correspondents dinner. and i have seen covers on c- span3. peter was chairman of the event and oversaw putting together the events. some of the speakers included, a -- as part of the program, you heard from many members of congress. >> this is a huge thrill for me. this is all broadcast on c- span3. tens of americans will see this. [laughter] at but cnn table, they are saying, "tens? s at is their c

ecret?" host: later on in the program, we will hear from xavier becerra. later on in the program, you'll your thoughts from senator rand paul. next, we'll hear from his father, rep ron paul. we will be right back. ♪ >> every weekend, of experience american history on c-span3. 48 hours of people and events.

here are first-person accounts on "oral histories." history bookshelf. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped an era during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms across the nation. join curators, collectors, and historians behind the scenes at historic sites on "american artifacts." american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. get our complete schedules online and sign up to have them e-mailed to you. >> this weekend on c-span2, "the new york times" columnist david brooks from "the social animal."

the white house correspondent, ken walsh. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for our book tv alert. >> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant, muammar gaddafi. he has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad and terrorized innocent people around the world. >> follow what leaders say about libya and how the process has unfolded from the president and other officials, the house and senate floor, and other leaders around the world all online at c-span video library.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, representative ron paul of texas. good morning and thank you for joining us. reports that some sort of deal may be coming together as far as how much to cut from the budget. what do you make as far as figures are concerned? guest: they talk about whether it is $100 billion or $33 billion or $60 billion. from my view, i think it is irrelevant when you're talking about the national debt that is up this year $2 trillion. the national debt will go up $2 trillion. what we do in the next week for two will not have any effect on that. i suspect we will spend more money this year than we did last year. the deficit will be bigger than ever. host: if the process is irrelevant, what do you make of what happens at the end of it? guest: i think they go through this because the people who feel

like programs might be cut, they want representation. the people who want to cut them to pay the bills, they want representation. it's impossible to reconcile the two. each side has to fight and show that they are standing up for their base. i'm going to protect what everyone. the other one says under the protect you, the taxpayer, the ones who have to pay the bills. if they did not look like they were fighting, they might get thrown out of office. this is a ritual. it has nothing to do with solving our problems. it's much more serious than reconciling a budget. this is not an accounting problem. this has to do with what the role of government should be. nobody talks about that. nobody says maybe perpetual welfare from cradle to grave should be challenged. maybe the efforts to police the world and be in 130 countries should be challenged. you don't hear much talk about

that. if you do not hear that, this problem will not be solved. it will be much worse. the economy will be weaker and revenues will go down. there will be so much momentum on spending that they are going to spend until they destroy the dollar. i think they are working on that very rapidly, unfortunately. host: part of this ritual includes the possibility of a shutdown. will that happen? guest: i do not think so, but it could. it would be temporary, but i do not think we will -- i do not think it will wake people up and up to the point to say we need to have a new philosophy of government. the intent of the constitution, restoring that, and say that we should spend on the programs that are of rise in article one, section eight. it will have to be a lot more serious. people will say that something has to be done and those in

charge, right and left, will have to say, "yes, we have to do something serious." right now, i see no signs of serious talk about the change in philosophy of government and restoring the intent of the constitution. host: even with the influence we been talking about this morning of the tea party and particularly because of the spending cuts that they want? guest: that is where there is some encouragement. the first tea party meeting, so to speak, in modern times was on december 16, 2007, during the times i was running for president. it was spontaneous. it was not organized by our campaign. that was based on change in foreign policy, non intervention foreign policy, getting rid of the welfare state, protect civil liberties, get rid of the federal reserve. since that time, with the massive expansion of the tea party movement, many

conventional politicians have moved in to capture that sentiment. the original message has been diluted. there are many in the tea party movement who do not talk about cutting the military industrial complex and getting rid of the patriot act and cutting and changing the welfare state and getting rid of corporatism, where all the subsidies go. it has been diluted, but there's still a healthy elements within the tea party movement. that part of the tea party movement does not have much to say about the budget discussions going on right now. host: our guest is ron paul. you want to ask some questions, you can do so on the phone.

also, if you want to send us a message on twitter, twitter.com/cspanwj is how you do that. as far as what needs to be done, how do you do that? how do you do that without affecting the budget overall or affecting the average american? it would trickle down to them eventually. guest: if you want to do it in a deliberate, calm fashion, get enough people to washington that would vote and strictly adhere to the constitution, bring home our troops, restrained and get rid of the federal reserve's ability to print money. we do not have to be responsible to congress. if we spend the money and you cannot tax enough, which we cannot, and you cannot borrow enough, which we cannot come if

the fed could not print the money, interest rates would go up and it would not be a discussion. interest rates would skyrocket and destroyed the economy. they would have to restrain themselves. if you had enough people to do all those things and revamp our whole concept of welfare redistribution, which i say is large, special corporations -- you could do it. i would say the odds are 1% or 2% 3 we have an improvement. we have people in the recent election, but we are a small number. host: your leadership is not up to the task? guest: i do not think they agree with me. for that reason, there's not enough people. i probably do not have the majority of the people in the country that agree, which makes it difficult, but i think the number is growing. i think it is the absolute truth of what we have to do.

in the meantime, i worked in that effort. the alternative is -- they cuts are coming. by economic lull, the cuts will come. we are insolvent and we have this huge debt. the momentum is so great that it will destroy the dollar. if we write checks and send them to people on social security and the check loses 10% every year, that's a tax and they will get much more fpoor. our government, are treasury, are federal reserve will not admit that. interest rates will go up. inflation rates will go up. people's standard of living will go down to the point where everybody suffers. the welfare state and a the world entire will crumble. those are by your circumstances and we should do what i was

talking about and moved back. in a pessimistic -- i'm a pessimist on the sense that will happen. i think the most important thing we do is get as many people in this country to understand the seriousness of this, what the alternative is, and it does not have to be total chaos. if we did what we had to do, we had a bad year. it will be tough to back off. if we did that, we would get back to work. if you did not have an income tax, the evidence, and government -- huge regulations and all the special benefits. we would be so wealthy so fast. we would not have to worry. people do not understand it well enough. they do not have enough confidence in freedom. they do not understand how important part money is, found money. this whole idea, if you need money, printed pieces of paper.

if you wanted $10 or $1 or $100, that's just another zero. if they think that is where wealth comes from, and we've been basing our leadership on that, all you have to do is create money and that's how you solve your problem. as long as that exists, we will continue to march on to this day when the whole thing comes down on our heads. host: robert on the line for democrats. go ahead. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with some of the things he said. i think it should be run like a family and not like a business. i was raised on a small farm, which consisted of a grandfather, a grandmother, a father, mother, and four children. which do you think contributed to the most to the farm? guest: in what way? caller: he could not take

cotton. he was not denied a place of the table. my point is that you are attacking the weak. guest: no, ok. caller: putting off teachers and what not. guest: let me explain the difference. people who are motivated to help the weak, and understanding of their motivation and i'm very sympathetic. unfortunately, when you are motivated to help the weak, the people who take control of all this wealth redistribution, the real welfare goes to the corporation. the best example of this is the housing bubble. the housing programs, whether it was the inflation or the housing program, was to help the weak. it did for quite a few years. a lot of people have houses. who benefited? the mortgage companies, the

bankers, and then they started dealing in derivatives and they made billions of dollars. it was unsustainable, so there was a collapse, which was predictable. the housing bubble collapsed. who got bailed out? who benefited from this idea that you held the week? they said the weak people are in wall street, the bankers, so they only got bailed out to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars and guess what happens? the week people you were supposed to be helping lost their jobs, they lost their mortgages, and they lost their houses. yes, you are well motivated when you want to help the weak, but it sets the stage for the week become weaker and the rich to become richer. that's why i believe in markets. you do not permit this to happen. the wealthy overtakes the welfare system once you institutionalize it. if you want prosperity and you

want to protect the poor, you have to believe the greatest prosperity comes from free- market, no bailouts, and then there will be jobs and the week people will be able to get a job and take care of themselves. host: norman, oklahoma on the line for republicans. caller: caller: it is such an honor to speak with the congressman. it appears to me that the friends of liberty differ in this respect. the friends of liberty have a strong philosophy and struggle for policy, whereas the opponents of liberty have and what the policy but no philosophy. what i love about what you do is you link up your philosophy with the policy. the thing i would like to show is this. with regard to the federal

budget deficit, [unintelligible] recommended that the friends of liberty ought to focus upon the transfers of money to the banks. why? that way, there could be a revolution in the political that would destroy everything in the left is trying to say about them advocating the politics of compassion. if you have 50% of the budget going to rich bankers, how can they be advocating the politics of compassion? guest: you are absolutely right. the bankers are in this together with the federal reserve, because the federal reserve creates in monetary base, and they send it to the bankers, and

then the bankers are allowed to profit from it. i think the point of the budget and the subject you bring up is very important. the budget is critical. i have been complaining about too much spending. i believe back then it was very, very bad. when tarp funds came out, i voted against it. tarp funds are huge. yet, wind the fed got involved in the were transferring wealth, they were forced to -- they were forced to release information, maybe $10 trillion of spending this money and to end bailing out their banking friends and we will probably learned a third of the bank's bailed out or foreign banks. even if tomorrow we had this

magic cure and we balance our budget, if we ran into a crisis, the fed is so secretive and out of control and has so much power, they can spend two or three times more than the congress can't. we have not been able to audit the fed adequately. the fed serves these big banks and the international community and how big corporations benefit from this at the same time poor people suffer the most. host: there is a story in the washington post today about tarp funds. guest: is an important point because it sends a very good. what do you think the banks did to improve the economy to make all that money? and they did not build a factory. there are not any more jobs. it the money flows into the banks and then wall street has

done quite well. there have been investment. they borrowed money for free from the federal reserve. they have been able to profit the they were unable to create anything. general motors is still a government company. this once again is profits for the banks and corporations. people are supposed to feel better about this, but there was no real wealth created. there is probably well over 20% people unemployed. the cost of living is going up. this is pure propaganda. it is true that they returned monday, but how did they make the money? host: tomorrow, we may see an increase in payroll increases, leading to an overall improvement in the economy according to some. guest: it would be a reflection

of inflation, and the payroll increases will not keep up with the cost of living. in many ways, payroll increases say you get payroll increases because of union powers and you get your wages up, that is another cost. it may do the opposite. but the people who are still in the marketplace, not living off the government, they have a challenge. that is a mixed blessing. that will not necessarily help the economy. host: jr. is on our independent line. caller: i would like to thank you for being a congressman in texas. you are one of the most honest people up there in washington. number two, i would like for you -- this is what i can do.

i have called every senator around me here in dallas and i have asked them just to send a professional business person here. they can come here. i can create anywhere from 2 million jobs to 15 million jobs. are you there? in anywhere from five years to 10 years without one time from the government. i can help the medicare, medicaid, and retirement funds. but it just takes somebody who is honest to do all this. host: we will leave it there. guest: if it is market-oriented, that is where the answers are. it will not be the government spending or printing more money.

host: off of twitter, someone says it -- guest: it depends what men we are talking about. sometimes, business people and the government blend together. if they are involved with corporatism -- this takes and military industrial complex. some of our big industries that build weapons -- they do not mind sending over 112, walks into an illegal war because they get more tomahawks. there is still a large number of people in business who have to make a living by satisfying consumers. they are the heroes. the reason why i will get in debates with people on left will be they understand this, but they put everybody together and say everybody in business

corrupt. if you do not get benefits from the government and you have to benefit only when you serve the consumers -- like if you are making tv sets and cell phone, maybe you are making a profit because the consumer wants it and the prices go down. if you are in business bowdoin weapons or depending on government contracts -- if you are in business building weapons or depending on government contracts, i believe it is unethical and not believing in the marketplace. host: what should be the end game of libya? guest: get out of there as quickly as possible. this is part of the budgetary problem. right now, that is not considered. we are spending $1 trillion a year to maintain our world empire.

is it is an empire. it is unsustainable. we should learn a lesson from the soviets. they were spreading themselves too far. they did not have a sound economy. they finally bankrupted and got too far into afghanistan. you would think that we will learn a lesson from afghanistan, but now they are already fighting. the military is fighting over taking any troops out. at the same time, we are sending in our cia's. lot is going to cpst ost a of money. another thing that bothers me is the cia. it is a secret army. the cia launches these missiles and drones on a constant basis into pakistan.

we are going into libya, but we have been in pakistan. in the last couple of years, we have taken over 2000 individuals who have never threatened the united states. somebody had claimed that there were civilians killed in libya which they probably had, but the numbers are probably small compared to some other problems. it is such hypocrisy for us to be in libya. they're just so happens to be oil investments in libya, maybe a reason why we are there. we should not be there. once again, we will continue to do this until bankruptcy comes and our system collapses just as it did with the soviets. we will be forced to come home. it is an important issue. some tea party people say do not

do anything with the military. others, more inclined to look to me, we want to stop this militarism. the defense budget and the military budget are two different things. they say we want to cut defense. i do not want to cut defense. i want to cut militarism. militarism is bad, but defense is good. we do not need to be spending more money on military weapons. nobody is going to threaten this country. why go look for these battles that are and this with no solution? there is more chaos with this libya thing than ever before. we are not even sure who is in charge. whether it is our president, nato, united nations, or the rebels, we do not even know.

al-qaeda is involved with this. it makes no sense whatsoever. it reminds me being on the side of osama bin laden when we were fighting in afghanistan in the 1980's. caller: could morning. i agree with you that -- i believe that is the biggest piece of the pie and that is where you will make the most dent in the deficit. this social security really is not a cause of the deficit, but i keep hearing politicians come on and say we need to cut entitlements. social security did not cause the problem. guest: social security alone did not cause the problem, but it has been abused, and that is a problem. if you put money into social

security, you cannot use that in the general revenue. that is a problem. there is no money in social security. if you pass a bill and say you cannot spend any of the social security money, and save tremendously and other areas, it could be salvaged. at the rate that we are going, if you destroy the dollar, everything gets destroyed if you have price inflation. that is a massive cut into our standard of living. social security alone would not do it. if they were to accept an interim proposal -- i would not start with social security or health care benefits even though from my viewpoint they were not strictly constitutional. i would not go after health care or social security without looking at the impact. i think we should look at that

and all of the corporate bailouts. ultimately, we should be opening the constitution which means our federal government would be much, much smaller. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i wanted to make a quick comment for the conversation. my perspective is that c-span grosslyn really close surel negligent. a want to give you an example quickly. let's pretend you are a middle american and your income is $100,000 a year, and you go out and buy a home well over $1 million. you finance its 4 $1 million. for that mortgage, you are paying $50,000 a year interest. half of all of your income you are paying in interest. i would guarantee you there is no american citizen who would

choose to do that. yes, there are elected representatives in congress and we have done exactly that. we are in that kind of trouble. when you start talking about making reductions in the debt, the kinds of reductions congress is talking about would be taking $4,000 off of that million dollar debt and it would make tens of dollars off the interest that we pay a year. if you put it in perspective, to help the american people understand, we are in a dire situation. guest: we sure are. all of this gambling on people taking these big debts out with a combination of easy credit, coupled with affirmative action- type programs, banks being told they had to make these loans, and it was also the psychology that comes with when you buy a house -- if you buy a 100,000

other house and you did not have to put anything down, what the heck, prices are going up and you go and buy another -- borrow another $25,000. that is pure speculation due to the monetary system. quite frankly, it was both, easy credit as well as these programs insisting that we make these risky loans. that will have to be addressed. if you buy a $100,000 house, you would have to put down $20,000 or $30,000. you would not have the inflationary psychology. the market would handle the problem without having the government regulations. government regulations always

serve special interest even though they say they are going to regulate to protect the consumer. host: your son spoke last night. did you get a chance to watch him? guest: unfortunately, i was unable to. host: this is what he had to say. >> dad, can i move back home? nothing for about 30 seconds on the phone, and then he says, "sure, son, of course you're welcome." one cartoonist did a caption about it. "dead, do you have anything you want to add on to the grocery list?" "son, we do not do central planning around here." the next frame as me going up to my dad, "is that time of the

month to pay the rent. "by only take gold and silver." -- i only take gold and silver." [laughter] some of you may have heard that one of us is running for president. it is a tough decision. you talk to your wife, your minister, if you are a democrat, your spiritual adviser. it is a tough decision. it has gotten even tougher. sarah palin paved a new path for all of us leader of the free world or have a reality tv show? host: blessed are with which of you are running for president. guest: there was a 5050 chance that one of the paul's would run. i think it is pretty well undecided.

i feel good that a lot of the other potential candidates are not going to decide for a couple more months. that gives it little more breathing room. i have often said that if my message is appropriate, -- the last go around, it was barely up reprieve because i talked mainly about the financial bubble that was coming. it right at the time of the election, it had burst. this time, i am talking about rising interest rates and a dollar crisis. i think we have begun to do that. if that uppers' an opportunity for me to talk about real solutions, i will be really tempted to do it. host: thinking about an exploratory committee or anything like that? guest: i have fought about it and i got pretty close to doing it. then i back off on it.

just because i am not exactly confident that i am ready to take on a very, very hard job. that was a couple of months ago. then i was going to wait and see about the economy. the economy is not going in a direction -- of course, you even decided some positive statistics. we still have a lot of problems and we need a lot of printing press money. that is why this dollar crisis is fast approaching. host: when do you think you may or may not decide? guest: for practical reasons, i think it has to be within a couple of months. host: is your son serious -- guest: i get asked a lot of questions. we have not had a serious discussion.

i see him quite frequently now. this presidential think really does not come up. i think it comes out more because people like to ask questions. host: you have never had a face- to-face conversation about this topic specifically? guest: no, absolutely not. host: columbia, md., you are next four congressman ron paul. caller: i think you should run for president. i would vote for you. that is my first comment. i cannot believe what you are saying. the military industrial complex is way out of control. it is in every country and it is costing us billions of dollars i am a vietnam veteran. i am a marine. i am still a marine.

i am 61 years old. i believe this country needs to come together. we need to stop fighting each other. the government has to stop fighting each other and the people of this country has to come together to some concise way of getting out of this problem. it is going to take someone like you to do this. guest: thank you very much. it is true that a lot of supporters for these views are not all republicans. they are independent and they are democrats. we had a vote on the continuing resolution a couple of months ago dealing with the amount of money going to afghanistan. i think it was like $600 million to rebuild the infrastructure that we destroyed. we had a vote to cut 600 billion -- $600 million of money going to afghanistan to build roads

and highways. we only got about 100 votes on that. first, we blow up these places and spend all of this money on weapons. then we have to go and rebuild. we have been in nation-building in afghanistan for 10 years now. quite frankly, i think iraq is a powder keg. we have turned over iraq to the iranians because the shiites are in control now. the kurds are essentially independent. i do not believe there is stability over there at all. yes, i am glad you are with me on this non-intervention because we cannot afford it. host: we go next to -- caller: i just want you to know that i agree with everything you

say. i am getting tired of watching democrats on c-span talking about we cannot cut this or that. we should just cut and the democrats the way they are talking because all they want to do is fund the most ridiculous things in the world. you can prove it to them that it is not working and they still want to fund it. my family is tired of me screaming at the tv and everybody because there is no common sense in congress or in the senate. it is getting ridiculous. then we have obama. i have never known anybody to be so ridiculous in my life. he is giving billions of dollars to brazil so they can drill for oil, and then coming over here and planning the oil companies because he is not allowing them to drill. it makes no sense to me. i think we have to get back to

the basics. bring these people home from the countries that we are policing. get back to the basics. it is ridiculous. guest: i think the word that you use is good. it back to the basics. everyone of us takes an oath of office. it means one thing to one person and something else to someone else. you do not go to war without a declaration, you do not have a welfare state, no central bank, and sound money. those are the basics. if we want to do all those things, we would amend the constitution. we do not amend the constitution any more. we just ignore the constitution. unfortunately, that is a bipartisan. both parties tend to do it. everybody supports the central

bank. i think going back to the basics sounds like a good plan to me. host: someone off of twitter this morning -- guest: to raise taxes or cut taxes? host: of the middle-class tax cuts going back to last year. -- the middle class tax cut going back to last year. guest: i want to cut taxes for everybody. they use these statistics. when you get in the top, top percent and you are very, very wealthy, you probably pay no taxes. poor people do not pay income tax, but they pay a lot on the payroll tax. i do not think any of that is in the good. i do not like the income tax. we ought to get rid of the income tax.

we did not have an income tax up until 1913. we had a good economy. we would be much richer now. anytime there is a tax cut available, i am going to vote for it, but i am also going to vote for all the spending cuts, too. host: charles on our republican line. caller: i am sick and tired of paying for the folks that don't account for how they are reared and growing up and paying their way. america is sick of paying their way. yes, we care about folks. please answer this for me. there is $4 billion, $4 billion

.ith a 'b' al sharpton is not a government employee. he owns a $3.5 million -- he owes $3.5 million in taxes. god bless the tea party. guest: i do not like the income tax. i think we would be all better off from it. we should have a limited government where taxes would be drastically reduced. you are tired of taking care of the people who do not contribute, and i understand that, but i think when you are talking about here is what we are facing. those people who have had special advantages, they are in the streets already. i think we are going to have more crises in our states and

communities because they are not going to be able to borrow money. there is a bubble that is going to burst. the contest is going to be those who work and want to be responsible versus those who live off the government who want all of these benefits. somebody is going to get cut. when they get cut, the people get into the streets and demonstrate. i often wish that hopefully it will not come to this country, but i am not convinced at all. i think the american people dependent on the system are going to be very, very angry. when higher interest rates hit, we are going to face a major crisis, and we better be prepared for it and know what the answers are. host: what your thoughts about general electric pay no corporate taxes? guest: i think we should all be treated equally. if they do not have to pay

taxes, nobody else should pay taxes either. that would be my answer. why don't they pay taxes? what do they do? they shuffle their money around and probably have stuff overseas. if the tax system is overburdened and you are not sophisticated enough to do this, the temptation is maybe i will go to a tax haven. to much taxes, too much regulation, so that is a mixed bag. it is unfair obviously. general electric makes money off of the government, too. they sell a lot of stuff to the government says they are a part of the problem. basically, if a corporation does not pay taxes -- we want a quality in the rule of law, so why do we have a system where nobody pays any taxes question how would we live? by cutting back on spending. that is an example of a

consequence of a system that is deteriorated and why we are chasing our business is overseas, and then jobs go out, income comes down, and then we borrow more money. our standard of living is very artificial right now. just to say that our solution is we are going to make general electric pay more taxes, that will not solve the problem. you have to look at the structure of our market economy. host: what do you see playing out this weekend and into the next? guest: i have said that i do not think the government is going to close down. i would not bet a whole lot of money on that. i think it will come up with a deal. it does not matter that much. we are talking about nickels and dimes. you are talking about a debt

increase this year of $2 trillion. somebody said they are down to about $6 billion. $6 billion is a lot of money, but in the scheme of things, when we are facing the kind of crisis -- it is just a distraction from the real problem. host: representative ron paul from texas, thank you. up next, a member of the ways and means committee will join us. >> here are some of the headlines. britain says it is not offering immunity to the libyan foreign minister who resigned and is now in england. there have been some speculation that to capitalize on this resignation, the british government might overlook his role in the bombing of the pan am flight and other incidents. meanwhile in brussels, nato's

chief has spoken against suggestions to our revels in libya fighting against muammar gaddafi. nato officially took over command of all air operations over libya from the u.s. the labor department releases weekly figures today on unemployment benefits. that release comes ahead of the big monthly report on the jobs market. finally, a new study says the cost of health care for retirees has gone down. the steady says that a 65-year- old couple retiring this year will need about $230,000 to cover medical expenses. last year, they would've needed $250,000. fidelity expects the projection to resume its upward trend. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant, muammar

gaddafi. he has denied his people's freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world. >> follow what leaders are saying about libya and how the process unfolded from the house and senate floor and from author leaders around the world, all online on the c-span video library. follow c-span on twitter. it is the fastest way to get updates as well as links to evens that we have covered. you can join in on the conversation. joined the viewers who already follow our twitter feedback. get started at twitter.com/ cspan. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: from california, welcome, sir. the cato institute has a craft this morning talking about the budget negotiations going on. it highlights the deficit at $1.60 trillion. does that number jive with what you are seeing? if that is the case, what do we do to reduce it? guest: that graf is missing a really big expenditure, over $1 trillion that we spend in the tax bill. you do not have to put in all the spending in the tax code because it is not a direct expenditure out of an appropriated sum of money. it is an automatic expenditure. these are the tax breaks, the tax giveaways that we hear so much about. it is a far larger number.

what we are talking about is skewed only toward the programs that help seniors and kids and the housing programs, the clean air programs that we have, but it does not take into account the tax breaks the code to wealthier individuals and corporations. host: it takes a 10-year scope of the budget, particularly with looking at ways to reduce the deficit. it is 10 years a good time frame? guest: it is good to look at horizons beyond one year or a few years. you are hoping you can tweak these things so in the long term you are dealing with the budget so we can make it something back our kids can live with in the future. host: as far as current negotiations with cuts to the budget, how much are those playing into a total deficit reduction picture? guest: the cuts that we are talking about, while significant

to the children who are going to lose the head start program, the seniors losing subsidized lunches or a loss of the senior citizen center, it is big. when you are only targeting 15% of the budget and leaving out over $1 trillion in tax expenditures, you are not focusing on the real problems. the big fish are still getting away with a lot. at some point, i hope we can talk -- host: how would you define those? guest: if we are going to go to war, pay for it. that is what we have done with iraq and afghanistan. we have told america we can go to war and we will have our kids pay for the cost of having done that. it cost $1 million for each soldier that we have out there.

the president did say he is not going to need more money to pay for the cost of libya so far. to give you a quick example, those 112 tomahawk missiles that were fired, at 63 noted dollars. so he said i will find the money within the budget -- $63 million. close to $1 trillion and iraq already spend. to me, the cost of the wars should be paid for up front, otherwise it becomes a driver of the deficits. if you take a look at the chart, the biggest driver of the deficits have been the bush tax cuts. host: that is highlighted in blue? guest: yes. these are essentially the same kind of tax expenditures.

when you give up money that you otherwise would of collected -- some people got the tax cuts and others did not. those that did not have to pay more for those that got the tax cuts. that adds up to a lot of money. so, the result is that over the last decade and into the next decade, should those tax cut continue, we are going to be paying heavily because the national debt as a whole is forced upon our kids. i voted against extending those tax cuts. others did, yes. host: aside from the tax cuts and the military, where are you as far as the ability to reduce the deficit and by how much? guest: again, it is going to be more targeted. let's put it this way. should we be cutting money from

veterans with direct budgeting? the house republicans did in their bill h.r. 1. maybe there is some wasteful spending for our veterans. just to eliminate the program altogether is not a targeted approach cutting spending. if there is a problem with a program, shave that program where it is being wasteful or where there is fraud. to cut, for example, services to veterans, $77 million that would scott, that does not make sense to me. -- $77 million that was cut, that does not make sense to me. i do not mind putting everything on the table. once we have examined it, let's take some small cuts. you are going to cost yourself a lot in the future. no one said to me that we have

the headstart program not working. it gets them ready for school. that billion dollar cap will probably mean 200,000 kids in america will not participate in the program next year. at the same time, about 5500 schoolteachers -- 55,000 school teachers that provide head start education would have to be fired. host: social security, medicare, and medicaid -- are they on the table, too? guest: republicans keep talking about touching social security. i wonder why you would want to do that when -- some private- sector operation business that is successful with social security.

the blue graph represents the amount of money that americans have contributed. we have contributed over $13 trillion since 1935 into the social security system. we have spent, the red bar, what we have spent as a nation in benefits to seniors that are retired, people that are survivors of american workers, and two americans that became disabled on the job. we have collected $13.10 trillion and paid out about $12 trillion. we have still in excess over $1 trillion in contributions. you can see at the top of the red bar is a very small bar. that is the cost of administering social security, about less than 1%.

it is extremely efficient. find an adviser in washington that will charge you less than 1%. he will not find him. the brown bar above the large blue bar is the interest that all of those contributions we made over the years, that is the interest we have gained and the 70 plus the social security has existed. and that money is earning interest through the treasury certificates that are held in that trust fund. why would anyone attack a system that is in surplus and continue to provide benefits? providing benefits to -- until the day you die and also becoming the most important aspect of retirement income for most americans. it makes no sense to me to go after the most successful

program in america. host: talking about deficit issues and other things, you can join in on the conversation with of the phone lines on the bottom of your screen. john, good morning. caller: congressmen, my comment -- it seems to me there is a problem right now. the government pretext tax revenues. i think it goes back to our trade policy. i do not think nasa has worked. i have talked to some many people and everyone says the same thing. we are sending some of the jobs overseas. i do not care what party you are in. i do not take donald trump serious as a presidential candidate but he keeps talking about trade policy. you have to say what you really

think. i think until we change our trade policies, the country is not going to bounce back. another comment i want to make, congressman ron paul who was on before , i think he is a decent guy, but no republican voted -- i'd want to hear your comments about trade policies. guest: thanks a lot. at one point, we will reach a state in our economy where our country will not have as its largest import foreign oil and our largest export, american jobs. we have to change that. i do believe we have to trade. that is the way things are when you are the largest economy in the world. we have to trade. you cannot let other countries take advantage of you. that is because we let these

other countries essentially cheat us through labor costs because they undercut the wages of their workers, making it tough for american workers to compete. china used to pay its industry workers about 60 cents an hour. we pay our workers $25 to $30 an hour. you cannot compete. you have to make sure the playing field is as even as possible and is not suppressed in one country because there are treating their workers in different ways or they do not have an institution to try to help them keep a law in place to protect copyright and so forth. i agree with you in that sense, but i do believe we have to trade. again, i would make fair trade deals.

host: philadelphia, howie is on our republican line. guestcaller: i have a common for you. i would love for you to bring back guy back on the show. i want to thank the democratic party for voting against the provision of the patriot act. i am part of the 2004 -- i am fed up with this drug war. i hope president obama knows there will be 2 million victimless crimes under his watch. there will be 2 million. do you care to comment about economic slavery, sir? guest: if you are talking about the folks placed in jail because they have two or three strikes serving crimes for nonviolent crimes and it is tough to we incorporate themselves back into society, i think that is one of the biggest mistakes that we

make. by the time they get out of jail, they become very violent. when you are making cuts not in a targeted way, you will probably make it impossible for states to have the resources to keep those offenders from becoming more violent, repeat offenders in the future. i want to go back to where the previous caller asked about oil subsidies because that goes to the point about encouraging our biggest import to be oil or petroleum. by subsidizing the largest oil companies in the world to produce oil when they are making major profits seems to be making no sense. i would prefer to make those tax incentives into the new energies, the cleaner burning energy, solar, wind, geothermal, so we can try to encourage the private sector to come up with new inventions and innovations

that will make those technologies and sources of energy for more a part of an our future. host: will we see a budget plan coming from the democrats in the house? guest: i think you will see a number of democrats talking about different plans. whether they come up with one single plan, i am not sure. and host: should there be a single plan? guest: you are trying to highlight the differences between the majority that is trying to lead in the minority. i think you will find the democrats will point out differences between what the republicans try to do, for example going after social security, medicare, and medicaid. you could make far more cuts if you do it in targeted ways that include everyone, whether it is war spending or tax loopholes

that if you just targeted our investments in education and seniors and our veterans. host: san francisco, you are next. amy on our independent line. caller: representative, i think you are a breath of fresh air. i have been listening for a little while, and i have heard people say how people need to wake up and people need to listen, but can you give me a couple of examples? the president has been in office for, let's say, 2.5 years. i know the answer already. just for the sake of argument, did he make this budget $14 trillion in 2.5 years? that is number one. number two is if we do not wake up as a society, our country --

we are cutting jobs left and right. they were supposed to be making jobs. they came into office and gave the top 2%, their bodies, a tax cut of $800 billion. everybody wants to talk about how the families. a family can sometimes come together. in this country, you have republicans fighting democrats, democrats fighting republicans. a family cannot work on a budget when that is going on. they want to buy candy over here and candy over there and at the same time cut out of the unnecessary stuff like medicaid and medicare we have to give away as much as we can to people who do not even need it. host: we will leave if there. guest: if you go back to the

first chart, it gives you a sense of all the different programs that have led to these deficits. what you will see is -- president obama did not walk into the white house with a healthy economy before him. he inherited an economy that was vastly indebted and growing even worse. o he had the biggest recession we have seen since the great -- he had the biggest recession we have seen since the great depression. as you can see from this chart, we were going to continue forward in some pretty aggressive ways into deficit spending. the bottom of the chart would be a balanced budget, if you were at zero. as you go up, you see those things that are contributing to the size of the deficit. over the long course of time, every year that we have

deficits, that adds up to the national debt, $13 trillion or $14 trillion. in january 2009 when barack obama took the keys from george w. bush for the white house, he could not cut off all these things. iraq, afghanistan, the economic downturn, the bush tax cuts or employes already under law. he inherited not only a terrible economy, but autopilot on some of these things continue to drive up the deficit. the president tried to do what he could to get us out of a ditch. we hemorrhaged 780,000 american jobs. january 2011, we created a quarter of a million jobs.

in the last year, 1.5 million jobs created. we lost 8 million jobs during the bush administration. we are trying to recoup those jobs for the americans out of work today. you can see how tough it is. when you add to that the fact you have 200,000 americans each year who enter the workforce, a graduate from college or high school, you can see the task in front of this government and this president to try to get the economy back to work. yes, day 87 or so into this new house majority, republican congress, we have yet to see one piece of legislation that will help stimulate the growth of employment in this country. at least one thing that president obama did in the league was to begin the process of putting americans back to

work, in the private sector especially. we need to see that in this congress. host: and into, to order, you are on with -- atlanta, georgia, you are on with the representative. caller: i have a quick question and a couple of comments. what year did mr. bush put in these cuts for the wealthy? guest: 2001 and then again in 2003. in two dozen one, when president bush took office, he was inheriting the largest surplus in our budget that we have ever experienced. he was being told by economists that he would be receiving -- essentially taken over the white house with a projected surplus of $5.50 trillion. when he left office, it became a

deficit of over $1 trillion. it was a complete reversal. caller: that was 2001. those billions and billions of dollars -- i think that even though we have a spending problem, i think our main problem is revenue. if you look at all the money that republicans gave to their big business friends, all of that money to bring down the budget and everything that they want to cut now, we could if used that money for these programs. i think it is real funny that they can take money from us to give to the millionaires and billionaires and then they want to cut us again. they want to cut from the children, the students, the seniors. they want to cut people like that. guest: gregory, that me agree

with you parley and disagree with you. to reduce revenues without thinking about it is a neat -- is as bad as spending -- is as bad as cutting spending without thinking about it. you have to have smart cuts in spending and smart cuts in tax policy. too often, we do not do things the smart way in congress because a special interest in the way especially when it comes to those tax loopholes. most regular folks do not come up to washington to argue for tax loopholes. we have all heard the story about general electric paying no taxes and actually getting a tax refund. ge is simply using the tax laws in the books to try to make sure it covers itself.

when i and of finding my taxes -- when i end up finding my taxes, i am going to take a mortgage reduction interest. that allows me to reduce my taxes more than someone who does not own a home. our laws and codes are structured in ways that if the special interests get in there, -- we have to make cuts in spending, in our programs that are not working, and we have to also make sure that if we are going to have a tax policy, it does not favor some over others. host: going back to your chart, how much are those attributable to tarp spending and things along that nature? guest: the red chart or graph, part of the craft that is shown in red, that is tarp, the bid

for the banks. you can see how big it was at the beginning, $700 billion. it has grown small because the banks have had to pay back most of what they got. its effects are still significant in terms of the dollar amounts, but in the scheme of things, it is one of the smaller contributors. tarp was to bail out the banks. the stimulus was to generate jobs in america. the private sector was not investing in america anymore. that was about $800 billion. both tarp and stimulus, unpaid for. there was no money made were brought in to pay for those activities. the same was for the stimulus bill. the stimulus bill has gone down because it was a onetime expenditure and it is generated 3.5 million jobs.

now you have 2.5 million americans paying taxes because they now have a job. you can see the effects of a onetime expenditure on the stimulus now becoming far smaller in the future, as opposed to the bush tax cuts becoming bigger in time bigger over time because they were back loaded. the big cuts to the wealthy took effect in the later years, so the cuts at the beginning were small. they were crafted that way so that the cost would look small, not until you were in the outer years, and now you can see how much it cost to keep the tax cuts in place for the very wealthy. host: so you'll see continued spending until 2019 according to this chart? guest: you will have the money spent up front, not recovered it all. to that degree that you have not recovered it all, it still adds up to a portion of what amounts

to the deficit of the country. it has become a small -- a far smaller number. every year the tax cuts go to the very wealthy. every year we are spending more, spending money on the war in iraq and afghanistan. if the libya military action is a one-time expenditure, it will show up as a quick blip in 2011 and go down to virtually nothing. if we stay in libya without paying for it, it will continue to grow the cost. host: alabama, jeanette, a republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman becerra. guest: good morning. caller: my husband and i are 100% service disabled from the gulf war, and we get disability. that is approximately $104,000 a year and we have a dependent sun -- a dependent son.

what has me boxed in a corner is when they talk about social security, i am not sure what the limits will be. i agree with cutting social security benefits and means testing and cutting medicare for the rich because they can afford private health insurance. but i am getting a little confused as to how this could possibly impact my health. guest: without having seen the plan presented yet, let me give you information based on previous republican plans that have been presented. when it comes to cutting benefits for social security that we know of, one plan that was presented would start the cuts, the means testing for social security benefits, at about $24,000. remember that the average benefit that seniors receive and

social security is about $1,400 a month. less than the $20,000. the means testing that i have seen in these proposals, republican proposals, would start cutting benefits for those who have an income of more than $24,000. it depends on if they will base it on social security, but most proposal i have seen basic not just on income was social security, but your total income, so your income with social security, other retirement benefits, and any other income that you receive from other investments. so if you have a total inflow of about $24,000, you would probably see your benefits cut. that is a plan that has been out there. whether that is a plan that is put forward this year by republicans we have yet to see. we may know so in a week or so. i will tell you that i am not a fan of making cuts to the benefits of social security or

means testing social security for the masons -- for the reasons i mentioned earlier. social security has not done anything to lead to these deficits. not one single dime of the deficit that we face today or the national debt that we face today is due to social security because social security has contributed -- you and i come all of us as american workers -- have contributed more into social security and we have had to take out. so much of the money we have put in that earns interest at a modest rate because it is in treasury certificates. if it accrued over $1 trillion in interest -- $2.50 trillion is sitting there, and that money is there, and i think it is a pity bank in the eyes of many people who want to use that -- a piggy bank in the eyes of many people who want to use that. obviously some folks in government would rather use that

money to try to reduce the deficit or pay for tax cuts to the wealthy and so forth, and i do not think we should tinker with social security that way. we have to deal with issues that come in about 25 years because of the demographics, because of the baby boom generation. the very last chart that i brought, some people said social security will go bankrupt. please, if anyone is listening or watching, i want to make something very clear. it cannot go bankrupt because by law and can never pay out more in benefits than it has available to it. by law. so let's say between you and i, what we pay as workers to social security, and within the trust fund, it does not add up -- at up enough to those retiring, seniors, workers in america -- what happens by law is social security can only pay out based on what it has.

we can never by law pay out more simply because last year my parents got 100% of their benefits. that does not mean that next year i will get the same amount. what we want to do is resolve it so that in 50 years we are still paying out the same kind of benefits. how do you resolve that? you do not have to cut or means test social security or tell seniors today they will not get what they paid for in the future. the chart shows you how you can deal with it without impacting a lot of americans who have worked very hard. how do you pay for it 75 years out? you can resolve the entire imbalance by simply telling the 1% of americans who got the bush tax cuts, "you will not get them." you take the 1% of americans, the 1% of wealthiest americans, "you no longer get the bush tax cuts."

you have more money than what you need to cover social security into the future, 75 years and beyond. so when people try to scare americans into believing you have got to cut your benefits, or for young people, social security will not be there for you. there is somebody who wants to put their hands in that piggy bank. host: massachusetts, independent line, bob. caller: you should add another bar to your social security in- and-out chart. how much money has gone back into the system that supports the local economy? i live on $800 a month, two years without a cost of living increase, which i think partly costs seniors -- caused seniors to stay away from the polls back in 2006. why spend all my money. i do not invest it or save it or have it and a mattress.

i spend all at the local coffee shop, the local grocery, or the mechanic. i spend it on excise tax for my car in the local community. every cent goes to stimulate our economy, and the people that work for the gas station, for the mechanic, that work in the grocery store, the people that work in town hall, the people who fix the roads and get paid, the town workers -- all of that money, you need another chart. how much of that money has gone back into stimulating our economy? guest: run for office and i will vote for you. you are absolutely right. when we talk about stimulating the economy, when we were in the depths of the bush recession, when we were talking about a stimulus bill, we were told by all the economists the quickest way to get america back to work is to put money in the hands of people who will spend it on good stuff, not yachts and vacations

but good stuff that creates jobs. the gentlemen -- the gentleman that just called in makes the point -- if you're a senior on a fixed income, you will have to pay your rent, fix that washing machine, buy your food. those are all activities that help america's economy. he is absolutely right, a social security benefit is not something most seniors then used to put into some crazy investment overseas. it is used to take care of basic needs, and that is what really does help the economy. so to cut what i mentioned before, a $1,400 average monthly benefit, even lower, is to not only make it more difficult for that senior to survive on a monthly basis, but we also make it tougher the economy to recover. host: representative paul does not see the government shutting down. what do you think?

guest: i hope not. the budget debate has gone from being about numbers and dollars to about social policy, cultural wars, abortion, voucher for school kids for private schools. it is leading the realm of dollars and cents, what is smart and what is not, to we want to make sure that we change the system for public schools, we want to eliminate planned parenthood and family planning for america's families. we want to get rid of national public radio. if we cannot get those things, shut the government down. that does not make sense. i hope sanity prevails. democrats have already put a number of proposals on the table. we had initially back in december put $41 billion of cuts on the table. republicans are talking about getting another additional $60

billion. i believe the white house has said we are about half way to that $60 billion. that is as deep as we should go. i might have been given time -- a difficult time supporting that. if we have to tell a veteran he has to lose out, it does not make sense. host: say you're not clear how you would vote, depending how it shakes out? guest: i want to make sure those cuts are targeted. i want to make sure that if we make cuts they are targeted to the people who partied during the first quarter of the 21st century and did not pay for it. those are the people who should pay. for a decade they partied, did not clean up the mess. clean up the mess, but you pay for the mess they created.

do not tell a veteran or a school child that they have to pay for the party of a decade. host: next caller, from louisiana. caller: how are you all doing today? i retired from the army in 1984, i did two tours in vietnam, and i got a raise in my retirement every year until obama took office. the first thing i guess he did when he took office was to cut off our retirement. i do not understand why he is making us veterans suffer, and i do not understand where all that money is going with all our veterans not getting retirement anymore. can you explain that to me, please? guest: thank you for your service. i would be more than willing to help you. you have your own member of congress in louisiana, but you are welcome to call my office as well, 202-225-6035, my

washington, d.c., number. i think you have it upside down. in the last two and a half years, we have increased veterans' benefits. i know we have tried to increase the salaries of enlisted and currently serving members of the service, so i would love to hear about your particular case because i think something is going on in your part of the country, in your home area that is causing you perhaps to lose benefits because i know of nothing that has gone on here in congress over the last two years and under president obama that would cut your military retirement benefits. please feel free to call the number i gave you. host: san antonio attack -- san antonio, texas, republican line. lois? caller: i have a question for the congressman. the budget from last year that will be passed this year -- i was trying to find out, on that budget, how much money are we borrowing? is it $1.60 trillion?

the democrats always complain about wall street and this and that. what about fannie mae, freddie mac, and all the people that would gain that money. every time they blame it on the banks get this, the banks get that, but never on themselves. that is my final question. guest: thank you, louis, for the call. if you want to get a sense of what we're dealing with in terms of the budget, the chart that shows the size and cause of the deficit -- there you can see the year of 2011, what are the principal conspirators to the size of the deficit? we are spending more for veterans, for schoolchildren, for seniors and the senior citizen centers and we have. on top of that, the tax cuts that have drained the treasury of money, the cost of the war,

the cost of tarp and so forth -- all those things add up to the point to the revenue that we collect turns out to be $1.5 trillion of all that we spend. the budget we are coming up with will decrease the size of the deficit but not very dramatically because when you are talking about even between $50 billion to $100 billion less, in terms of a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit, that does not cut it. host: one more call, and it has to be a quick one. hickory, north carolina. william, on our democrats line, if you can make it succeed, i appreciate it. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i have a couple of points to make real fast.

host: we are almost out of time. ask your question, please? caller: would you talk about the fact that general it -- general electric and exxon pay less in taxes? guest: of the fact that a corporation like exxon or general electric will pay less in taxes than the secretaries that work for those companies, it shows the imbalance in our tax system. that is when i talk about the tax loopholes, the tax year marks, tax giveaways, whatever you want to call them, that total up to over $1 trillion a year. what keeps some of those tax expenditures, -- we will keep some of those tax expenditures because some of them we think are good. is it helping to create jobs in america? it is helping to export jobs to other places. we should retract the tax code from providing those tax loopholes. where we can make some real

dents in the deficit is we incorporate the spending we do through the tax code which totals over $1 trillion a year host: representative xavier becerra, thank you for being up with us this morning. we will take a look at the changing population and the demographics of the united states. our guest will be john logan with the u.s. 2010 project. before that, another news break from c-span radio. >> here are some of the headlines. fewer people applied for unemployment benefits last week. analysts say that as a sign that layoffs are dropping and companies might be stepping up hiring. the labor department says the number of people seeking benefits dipped by 6000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000 for the week that ended march 26. that is the second decline in three weeks. meanwhile, the associated pres'' new global economy tractor finds

the u.s. out of step with the rest of the world's industrialized nations in terms of job creation. the analysis of 22 countries finds the u.s. economy is growing faster than others but creating far fewer jobs. partly because american workers have become so productive, it is hard for anyone without a job to get one. the u.n. world food program has delivered so far $2 million worth of aid to japan, but the agency said today that japan still needs much more temporary shelter. sanitation help and health equipment. finally, another member of the britain house of commons has been sentenced to prison for making fraudulent expense -- fraudulent expense claims. jim divine has been sent to prison for filing bogus invoices for cleaning and printing work, totaling more than $13,000.

a total of three to 92 current and former british legislators have been ordered to pay a total of 1.1 million pounds and expenses. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is open quote washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights coming congressional hearings and policy forums. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, see our signature programs. on saturday, "the communicator's." on sunday, "newsmakers." you can also watch our program at c-span.org, and it is searchable in our c-span video library. the public service created by american's cable co..

throughout the month of april, we will feature the top winners of this year's c-span student cam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries on the theme washington, d.c., through my lands. -- through my lens. during the program, meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos anytime online at studentcam.org. >> this weekend on "booktv," "new york times" best selling author david brooks on "the social animal." live on "in depth," your calls and tweets for poet and playwright author ishmael reed.

sign up for a booktv alert. "washington journal" continues. host: our final guest this morning, john logan, the director of the u.s. 2010 project. folks at home may not have heard of that project. what does it involve? guest: we have support from brown university and the russell sage foundation to try to recap what has happened in the united states over the last 10, 20, or 30 years to see what the trends are. it involves not just my own work but a dozen teams around the country who are experts in their fields, ranging from economics to family change to housing. my particular expertise is on race and immigration. host: one of the things you look at is how those factors will change in the united states, essentially how the united states will look race-wise over the next decade. >> we are trying to figure out where it is taking us.

host: where is it taking us, then? guest: if we look at just the under-18 population of the country, it is now 53% non- hispanics white. before 2020, we will be majority child population in this country. host: what does that mean? guest: it means most of the kids in schools and the future labor force will be predominantly back -- predominately black, hispanic, and asian. we have seen it coming for a long time, but when it gets to that point and you say, well, now here we are. host: as far as numbers concern specifically for the spanish and asian populations, those saw the largest increases? guest: those saw the biggest increases. it has been a long-term trend that the non-hispanic white population has been aging.

we talked about the graying of america. i have been praying along with it. the african-american population has begun to gray. a lot of adults in their 40's and 50's are better -- are passed that. host: what kind of increases numbers-wise did you see in the white and african-american communities? guest: the white population is very static at this point. it is barely moving. the black population increased about 10%, but that is in comparison to 40% growth in the hispanic and asian populations. host: is that going to stay static, or will that change, too? guest: there is no reason to think that non-hispanic whites like me are going to have babies again or that there will be a big influx of people from europe into the country. there is continuing immigration

from europe, but it is not such a large scale. on the other hand, it just seems inevitable, not just that we will have continued immigration. even if immigration stopped today, there are so many young adults and teenagers in the hispanic and asian populations, they will be growing naturally. host: as far as the why of all this, why are these phenomena happening? guest: the reason the older populations are tending to fade out now, it is just a natural population shift. something that was happening in europe, for example, well before the united states for the last 30 years, europe has been well below the level at which natural population growth would replace the population. people were having one-child families. one-child families did not maintain the size of the population.

that is one side. the other side is that we have an economy that has demanded a labor force both at the very high and and at the very low end. so we have created real attraction for people around the world to take advantage of both those good jobs and those bad jobs. host: as far as the sharp increases in hispanic and asian populations, you would attribute it to that, or are there other factors? guest: an important factor is that there are a lot of asians and hispanics in the country that are young and having children, and their children are going to have children. that is the larger factor at this point, but immigration continues to be an important input. host: our guest is with us until 10:00. if you want to ask us about the changing united states, 202-737- 202-737-democrats, 0001 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents.

when you put these, or analyze these, does the main information come from the census, or is there other information you use when compiling these numbers? guest: the senses is the one we can really count on to give us -- the census is the one thing we can really count on to give us close to exact figures. how many people are immigrant versus born in this country or income levels of people or characteristics of neighborhoods, the american community survey, which used to be part of the census but is now an annual event, large-scale survey, is the major source of that kind of information. there is a lot of other sources. we depend on the national center for health statistics, education data, the current population survey, which is how we know what the unemployment rate is every month. there are a lot of different

sources, but the census is really key. host: our first call from you is from saginaw, michigan. valerie, democrats line, you're on with john logan of the u.s. 2010 project and brown university. are you there? caller: yes, i am. i finally got through. dealing with the censors, i do not understand why -- are we talking about suddenly becoming a brown country, or are we worried about that? what is the purpose of keeping up with the different ethnic backgrounds of people in the united states when you do not do it with german americans, russian americans, swedish

americans? it is ridiculous. to me, we are all americans. i understand some of it has to do with where the money is delegated, how much they put into the black community, how much they put into the -- i mean, what is the purpose of it? break it down and be honest and tell why do we really need to know who is who in america. are we worried about america no longer being dominated by the caucasian race? guest: i am not worried about that. i think in fact the country is stronger as we become more diverse and we draw talent from different sources. that is not my motivation at all. the thing i would like to point to that is personally what i see as a concern is the nation becomes more diverse, and it is not clear that we're fully integrating all these people in the full community life of the

nation. for example, even now, african- american communities are highly segregated from non-hispanics whites. there has been changed since the 1960's, but they live in very different communities, and the pace of change is quite slow. hispanics and asians, as they enter the country in larger numbers, they are tending to live more and more in isolated ethnic communities. i think these are potentially problems about how we get along with each other, how much we understand each other. more than that, i am concerned that particularly hispanics as the most important now, numerically the most important minority community, are living in communities with the least resources, and their children are going to some of the worst schools in the nation. this is a real concern. so tracking how many people there are is just one piece of

it. asking where they live, where they work, under what conditions, that tells us about the future of the country and that is where the action is. host: miami, florida. go ahead. it is wilson on our independent line. caller: good morning, john logan. i have two quick questions. i want to know how you feel about eugenics and population reduction because -- from your job criteria. secondly, how do you feel about ron paul? he also has stated that he thinks the census should only be a few questions, not so privacy- breaching. thank you for being on the show today, john. guest: i will take the question about the census first. the census is down to 10 or 11 questions. it is really very brief. it asks you who lives in your

household, how old are they it asks you about race, which is a requirement for many federal programs, to understand the racial composition of the country. and it has a couple of questions about housing, and that is really it. that is what everybody does. the questions that some people think are more interested -- for example, asking new york in come -- are in the american communities survey. they have been removed from the census, and they are only asked to a sample of people every year. it is important to know these things because when we ask under what conditions are people living and what are the opportunities for their children, if we do not know things like what kind of job they have, what kind of education level have they reached, then we will not know how to address those questions. host: idaho falls, idaho, a republican line, steve.

caller: yeah, i have a question similar to the first lady. on your census, there are so many racist questions. how can the public into great when the government does not? -- how can the public integrate when the government does not? shouldn't it be for all americans? are certain races needing to be separated by the government? then the public will do the same thing. guest: well, i do not think that when you keep track of how things are going in the country, that that means that you are separating people. the french had a very interesting approach to all of this, and that is that they refused in their senses to ask questions about where people came from.

they said everybody is a french citizen and that is the way we are going to treat them. but the reality was, regardless of the statistics, that immigrants, particularly from north africa and france, worked under very different conditions, had very different opportunities for jobs, and overtime have been creating a real problem in terms of incorporation into the country and their contribution of their children to the labour force. it resulted at one point in riots in french suburbs among that community. the government's failure to provide information about that did not reduce the problems, hid the problems, and i think that we do better in this country by facing up to the fact that, indeed, race is important in the way people live, who they marry, what kind of neighborhood they choose to live in, what kinds of schools they send their children

to. it is a reality. it is not treated by the government. host: one of the things that came out was a certain migration happening toward the south. can you elaborate? guest: there are a lot of population shifts in the country. an interesting one is that african-americans have tended to move out of northeastern and midwestern population areas to some parts of the south and to texas, arizona, nevada, along with everybody else. we have to ask the question, then, are they improving their situation by this movement, and what kinds of neighborhoods are they living in, for example, in atlanta? there is a reason why people are moving. what is the outcome? host: as far as neighborhoods are concerned, as far as what we are seeing as changes are concerned, what is the neighborhood looking like? are there more races represented

in neighborhoods? guest: there are two contradictory trends going on. one trend is that many neighborhoods -- and this involves a very large share of the american population -- are becoming more diverse. there used to be a lot of all- white neighborhoods, frankly. we were a highly segregated country in 1980. over time, many of those neighborhoods first brought in hispanic and asian residents, and white neighbors began to feel comfortable with that kind of diversity. then we see as a second step african americans entering the neighborhood and being accepted and whites staying. that is a very positive trend. to the extent that we see reductions in segregation between blacks and whites in the nation, it is often through this intermediary of hispanics and asians kind of moving in first

and creating a way. but on the other hand, whites are moving further and further out. that is where you would find the all-white community. and whites almost never move into predominantly minority neighborhoods. once a neighborhood becomes a mainly black and hispanic neighborhood, in particular, its future for a very long time is foretold. whites are not moving to such places. one of the reasons, of course, is because they are the worst neighborhoods, and it is rational not to want to move there. but the issue for me is, what about the people who live in those neighborhoods? what does it tell us about their futures? the average black and hispanic kid in the united states goes to a school, an elementary school, that is 65% pork, eligible for

the free lunch program. the average -- that is 65% po or, eligible for the free lunch program. that is very significant, and it is not just the disadvantage for blacks and hispanics who suffer that consequence. but especially as our future labor force is going to be a non-white labor force, it is a problem for all of us. host: you spend some time on capitol hill addressing what is going on. what are the questions you asked, and what our legislators interested in finding out? guest: yesterday i was meeting with the rhode island delegation. what i found was that the senators and congress people from rhode island are pretty aware of these trends. in fact, rhode island is one of the state's, like quite a lot of states in this country that

experienced no net population growth. the white and black populations are raising and quite static, and to the extent that there is some dynamics in the population, it is from asian and hispanic people moving into the state. we find that we are going to be dependent on these groups for the future. rhode island has a very high unemployment rate, and people are asking questions about what is the future of the economy and the job market. well, what we have to offer increasingly is an immigrant labor force or a minority labor force. we are not doing a very good job of paring it to do good work, -- of preparing it to do good work. that is the issue from a policy perspective. host: from virginia, joanne, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call i agree with the first

lady. race is not important now. from all these surveys, we have not been given the truth about what is happening in our country. we are really tired of it. this is not just in the poor neighborhoods, this is in the rich neighborhoods also. our children are just at an end people working for our country, they are not living in reality. they are taking polls and doing surveys that are not important now. guest: well, i have to disagree with you. on the one hand, there are issues that cut across race and class and affect all americans, so there are plenty of concerns that ought to be uniting us. but it would be a mistake to say that race does not matter any more. we think, for example, that the

black middle class has managed to get out of the central city ghetto and is doing pretty well, but in fact -- and this is the most recent analyses that we have done from data from the american community survey -- the african-american -- the average african-american family earning over $75,000 lives in a neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average white family that earns less than $40,000. there is a divide here. people can live well in a neighborhood of any racial composition, but the way that we actually organize communities does not work out so well. host: baltimore. republican line. caller: hello. this is really great, an interesting conversation. i have -- well, i am hispanic. when i came to this country, i

came of my free will, and i married someone who was an american. i did not become a citizen right away because i wanted to make sure that that is what i wanted to do. i decided that this is such a beautiful, fantastic, a great country. i love it, and i decided i am going to become a citizen. i am going to be a really true american citizen. my family, some of them were not very happy, but i stayed. i never told them, you are hispanic american, you are this american. we are americans, and we knew that we were going to live here. you know, so -- and i did not move into an all-hispanic

neighborhood. some of my friends wanted me to do that, and i said no no because i wanted to be just like everybody else. and i knew -- and this is a big problem -- the government wants to keep the hispanics in a group, in a neighborhood, because i believe deep down in my heart that they want to keep the hispanics down a little bit and not teach them and not do a lot of things because they are needed to do the menial work. host: we will leave it there. next call is wilkes-barre township, pennsylvania. democrats lined -- wilkes-barr vury township, pennsylvania. caller: my first comment is that our training was terrible. the manual that we were given to

learn from the not have anything such as a copyright date, and authorship, a library of congress number. i am sure that between that -- that affects your statistical gathering, which may affect your outcomes and your analysis. but the other thing is, and as i still do not understand -- my first address verification, i pulled up to a house, i was getting the information i could on my hand-held calculator, my car pulls in, and the guy says what are you doing? i said i am from the census department, and this guy screamed at me, "i do not like the way that black obama is doing the census!" i did not know how to respond. is there more than one way of

collecting the data? the republicans, i think, wanted a specific headcount, and the democrats were willing to use a statistical generality. i do not really know. i had no idea what this guy was talking about. guest: let me explain a little bit. it is very tough to count 300 million or 400 million americans and do a good job of it. there are a lot of people who were working on the ground figuring out what were the addresses where people live and what you should be looking for, much less to get information from people. there are a lot of holes in the data that we get. many people do not want to tell what their income is. they will answer other questions but when they get to that one day will not tell you.

a great deal of careful work has to be done to figure out how to fill in the gaps and have a more complete understanding. so the census bureau does not depend just on the enumeration that goes out through the senses but is continuously doing surveys, calling people, talking to people in person and trying to get enough information that they can fill in the blanks. frankly, it is a very hard job that i think they did really, really well. it is one of the sources of information that i have come to have a great deal of confidence in because what i see in the data corresponds to what i also see in the neighborhoods or that people can tell by who is in the schools, or people can tell by looking at who is going to hospitals and clinics. all of this stuff gets put together and create a full picture that fortunately squares

up. so i have to say it is tough to do and it has to be very frustrating for the people working on it. but i think we really do know what the country is like. host: one of the questions for people -- what are the questions for people in urban areas, suburban areas, the people that have to manage these areas as well? are there policy questions that have to be addressed with these changes, as far as how a city or county manages itself? guest: certainly there are, and the questions shift a little bit. in the 1990's up to 2000, a major question was the aging of the suburban population. it had been true for a long time that the central cities were older people live -- that the central cities where older people lived, and the suburbs were were you went as a younger family to raise kids. that was true for a number of

years, but in the and aging catches up with everybody, especially politicians and public officials at the county level needed to understand what the dimension of the problem was that they would face in terms of particularly health care and services for older people. now i think that we have particular concerns about the child population, and because the child population is disproportionately poor, is disproportionately hispanic and asian, many of them are from families that are not citizens or do not speak english well, and it shows up at our schools as issues about how are we going to carry out first-class education for this population. we need to be aware of it. host: rumford, maine, you are

next. don, on our independent line. caller: i was wondering if you take in view of immigration into consideration at all. my business was put under because it illegals running rampant in oklahoma. do you consider everyone as citizens, or do you take illegal immigration into consideration? guest: no, we do not consider everyone as citizens. the census does not try to determine who is documented or an undocumented resident of the country. that is left to the i.n.s. and the census bureau to determine -- the i.n.s. and homeland

security to determine. it is a significant population, but on the one hand, it is not growing now. and it is a fairly small share of the total. now, what is left is what their impact is on the economy and the labor force. many people have asked, are they taking jobs away from americans? that is really the bottom-line question for many people. or are they costing more in services than they are providing in taxes? most of the research that i have seen, and there has been a lot of focus on this, suggests that there is no strong net impact on job prospects for american citizens, but there are some very specific areas where the competition between illegal

immigrants or immigrants and u.s. citizens reduces wage rates in those specific jobs. so that happens. at the same time, immigrants are creating a very strong boost to the economy. in many places, there would be a significant decline in population if it were not for immigration. so it is very hard to say that on balance it is really a problem for the country. my personal view is that it is an asset. host: same lewis, missouri, lawrence, democrats line. go ahead . see, first, i would like your host to comment on the percentage of african- americans, the prison and black males and how that affects our population numbers.

if the average black male is locked up between the ages of 18 through 28, how many unborn young black americans are not born, and their children over the course of 10 years, in his estimation, how many black americans are not been born based on this? i would also like to say that i am sure he knows that this plays a significant role on people's psyche, and when you have white people being labor the majority and other people being labeled the minority. guest: incarceration is a very significant factor, particularly, as you say, among young black adults. it is a very large share of the population that is in jail today or was in jail last year or two years ago or might be in jail three or four years from now.

so this is a very significant concern. as you point out, it does have implications for the growth of the population. from the point of view of african-american women, the question is, who can i marry? in fact, part of the reason for the low rate of marriage and the high rate of childbirth outside of marriage for african-american women is that men are not around and are not available. so this is very significant, a very significant part of the whole population question, and it is one that politicians are reluctant to face up to. host: you talk about it a little bit, but you were asked how age factors into this, particularly in the next 10 years or so.

guest: as i already mentioned, besides the question of incarceration, not only the white population but the black population, to come is beginning to age. the trajectory is that more and more people in the over-40 population -- are in the over-40 population, so they're not having kids. that will affect future population growth. host: los angeles, go ahead. caller: good morning. what i want to say is that i would like to understand the part that, why is it that people come to this country now and they do not assimilate to us. we assimilate to them now, and we also make a big mistake by making everybody a citizen now instead of waiting, like, for 10 years before -- after they are

citizens, before they can vote into this country. guest: we certainly have a lot of policies that relate to the question of naturalization and political participation. if you enter the country legally, it typically takes at least 10 years to complete the path to citizenship. i would have to ask, what does citizenship mean after 10 years if it does not include the right to vote or to take part in decisions about your country's future now that you are a citizen? so i guess i would have to be worried about, what is your concern? what is a true american who should really be taking part in politics? my own view is that people who are committing to the economy, people who are going to be staying in this country not only themselves but their next generation and the generation

after that, these are people who have a stake in the future of the country and they ought to be participating and we should be listening to their voices. host: dennis in texas, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for your work on the census bureau. my question plays to -- first off, i think it would probably have been better asked if we asked in 2008 at the height of the economic crisis, but i was asking about the jobs. it is a big question right now about job creation and how we can use policy to encourage job creation, whether or not we should give tax breaks to corporations to allow them to provide jobs, or should we be aiming at small business, or to

handouts. i was wondering, if we are looking at the demographics for the number of unemployed people versus the demographics of the jobs that we had lost in industries that they were lost from -- are we thinking about policy when we are making policy to shape the job creation in the industries or in the fields in which we had the job loss? guest: those are good questions. if i could give you a really good answer to that, then i shouldn't just be a sociology professor, i should be out in the world figuring out how to change the nation. a few things we know about this -- this is a country that has always gone through cycles of

recession and improvement and then another improvement and then a period of more prosperity. we have had cycle after cycle. since 2000 we have actually had two recessions, and what was unique about this particular situation is that the recession that we had at the beginning of the decade, we did not really recover. it was a very weak recovery from that. so when we entered into the current recession, we were starting from behind, a very bad position. and the job loss associated with this recession has been much greater than the job losses that were associated with previous recessions. now, to the extent that this decade was marked by the policies of the bush administration from 2000 to 2008, and that we would say that in some way those policies are

responsible for how well or badly we did, i would say the verdict is that we did very badly. so we ought to be looking for a different set of policies. but if i could give you a good prescription for what the policy should have been instead, instead of tax cuts across the board, how should we have invested the same revenues, it is hard to answer that? host: jan from twitter ads, "the only race is the human race." brooklyn, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i am glad you could take my call. i'm calling in regards to the gentleman saying that the whites stopped moving to minority neighborhoods. i have been living in brooklyn since 1949, and i have seen

thousands of families moving into those places where there were no whites living, ok? so now they are moving, building all kinds of houses, shifting the 20-story apartment houses and what not. i think he should take a look at this county before he makes a statement like that. that is what i have to say. god bless c-span. host: off twitter, somebody wants to know the implications of the black/latino/white education situation. guest: i think i made a comment about the levels of poverty in schools that blacks and whites go to. i think i can also make a comment about performance. comment about performance. the